• ThrowawayOnLemmy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    I disagree. This is just a market maturing. Gaming is relatively new compared to other media and really started exploding in the late 80’s and 90’s. Someone aged 55 is still a decade away from retirement and has probably been playing games since the late 80’s. It’s totally possible they’ve been gamers the whole time.

    And gaming is hardly so expensive as to be compared to Ferrari. There’s still plenty of ways to play games cheap. People pick up used games and older consoles all the time. Even new, games aren’t prohibitively expensive. Don’t get me wrong. A new console is not cheap by any means, but there are plenty of ways to enjoy video games and not spend thousands. You don’t have to have the newest stuff to enjoy games.

    Also who said Ferrari’s are designed for 20 year olds?

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      I think the point is just that young people don’t participate as much as they would because they don’t have the money for it. In previous decades young people had more money to spend.

      • vividspecter@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        We’d need per capita data over time for each age group to conclude that. Might be in the actual study, but it’s behind an absurd paywall (3000 UK pounds). I think it’s plausible that both groups have been increasing over time, but over 55s increased more. There is probably a hard limit on how many young people are going to enjoy gaming, whereas there is a lot of growth to be had in the over 55s group (as historically, few played games).

    • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      Consoles and Gaming PC parts (GPUs especially) are increasing in price at a time when people are struggling to pay their bills. $70 for new games now, or you can pay $120 every year, but you don’t own anything. I meanz, you also don’t own the $70 games either, but you extra don’t own games on a subscription service. Old games are there and fine, but in comparison to the current economy, where inflation around the globe is higher than it has been on average since video games were really a thing, new games are a very expensive hobby.

      Directly dollar for dollar, it may be comparable, but taking the economy into picture, games in the past were cheaper. Especially considering how much revenue video games generate now. Prices should be lower, but expected infinite business growth from shareholders is preventing that.

      Also who said Ferrari’s are designed for 20 year olds?

      Enzo Ferrari, the founder of Ferrari, did. He didn’t specify exactly 20 year olds, but his quote was “I build cars for young men that only rich old men can afford.” Or something similar to that effect, as the quote would have been originally in italian.

      • tburkhol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        When I went to college in 1987, I got sent with a $2000 computer. That’s around $5600 in 2024 dollars. An Atari 2600 was $200 in 1980, which is around $1000 in 2024 dollars. Computer gaming in the 70s and 80s was for kids with rich parents. You could get a little sample, at $0.25 for a few minutes in an arcade, but most of those games would play well on a phone platform today, and you’d be paying something like $15/hour in 2024 dollars.

        Today, a desktop computer or laptop is nearly ubiquitous. It may not play the latest AAA at 4k, but neither do most gamers. Even if you exclude mobile gaming, PC and console games are wildly more accessible today than when the 55+ crowd were coming of age.